UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 

BENJ. IDE WHEELER, President 

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE thomas forsyth hunt, dean and director 

___„_. _ v H. E. VAN NORMAN, Vice- Director and Dean 

BtRlxELtY University Farm School 

CIRCULAR No. 152 
June, 1916 

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE BULK HANDLING 
OF GRAIN FOR CALIFORNIA 

By B. H. CROCHERON and C. J. WILLIAMS 



The method of handling grain in California has not changed in 
the last tAventy-five years, despite the change in shipping conditions. 
As yet, practically all grain is sacked in the field and is so handled 
and shipped. 

The present agitation for the bulk-handling of grain is not the first 
time that the question has been broached in California. Some twenty- 
five or thirty years ago, when California was a great wheat-exporting 
state, the millers attempted to bring about a change from the sack to 
the bulk system of handling grain. At that time practically all grain 
exported from California was shipped in sailing vessels going through 
the Straits of Magellan. Because of the length and tempestuousness of 
the voyage, there was great danger of the shifting of the cargo with the 
ultimate loss of the ship. When a ship carrying bulk grain lists, 
thus displacing the center of gravity, the cargo shifts with it, unless 
special devices are provided. Due to the shifting of their cargoes, 
several ships carrying bulk grain were lost en route to England. On 
account of the great risk, insurance agents refused to insure ships or 
their bulk cargoes, and as a result bulk-cargo shipping was ended. 

Today, however, shipping conditions have changed. There are now 
few sailing vessels leaving our harbors, these having been replaced 
by modern steamers which are faster, safer and more reliable. Perhaps 
the greatest change, however, is that the route has been greatly short- 
ened. It formerly required seventy-five days for a steamship to travel 
from San Francisco to Liverpool around South America. Today, with 
the use of the Panama Canal, the voyage can be made in thirty-five 
days, and by so doing practically all of the dangerous storm zone is 
eliminated. The change in shipping facilities and the shortening of 
the route to the markets of Europe has made bulk-shipping as practical 
from our western ports as from any other ports in the world. 



Since the last great agitation for the bulk-handling of grain, an 
enormous change has also been wrought in the grain production of 
California. Formerly wheat was the great grain crop ; now barley has, 
to a large degree, taken its place in production. Formerly wheat was 
exported in large quantities; now wheat of higher gluten content is 
imported from the middle West to blend with our California wheats 
in order to improve the baking quality in manufactured flour. Barley, 
however, is exported, and therefore the export situation chiefly con- 
cerns itself with the handling of barley, either by the present sack 
method or by the proposed plan of bulk grain. 

But handling conditions which applied to wheat may not apply 
with equal force to barley. Brewers buy barley largely on its physical 
appearance, rather than upon its chemical composition; thus bright, 
clear barley is valued at a higher price than discolored grain, even 
though the latter may have as good qualities for brewing. The custom 
of this trade, as in many other trades, must have a determinant effect 
upon the plan of handling the grain. 

Thus, the kind of grain grown as well as the destination of the 
grain, whether for home or foreign consumption, has an important 
bearing upon the way in which it may best be handled in this state. 

Grain-Shipping Conditions of the World. 

The large wheat-producing countries of the world are today either 
handling their grain in bulk or changing over to the bulk system. 
Russia, which is one of the oldest grain exporting countries, not only 
handles all of her grain in bulk on the mainland, but also exports most 
of her foreign shipments in bulk cargoes. Australia, which is situated 
further than California from the markets of the world and which has 
been handling and shipping her grain in sacks for as many years as 
California, is now maturing plans by which the government will build 
elevators so that farmers may ship their grain by the cheaper bulk 
method. In Argentina, the government is making arrangements to 
change their system of handling wheat from the sack to the bulk 
method. These changes are there made possible through the use of 
modern steamships instead of the less reliable sailing vessels. 

On this continent, Canada has recently done away with the use of 
sacks. Practically all of the Canadian wheat is transported in bulk 
through the country elevators, most of which are "farmers' co-opera- 
tive," to the large terminal elevators built by the Dominion govern- 
ment and the great railroads. Most of the Canadian grain is exported 
from the Atlantic coast. 



There have been several elevators built in Washington and Oregon 
during the last few years. The Port of Seattle has just completed the 
construction of a 500,000-bushel elevator which is equipped for 
handling both sacked and bulk grain. At present about 10 per cent 
of the grain of Washington and Oregon is handled in bulk. 

Almost all the United States handles and ships grain by bulk. In 
all the states east of the Rocky Mountains, the use of sacks in the 
manner common to California has never been known. Some few of 
the small farmers handle their grain in sacks, but this is not general. 
When used at all, sacks are of cotton and of a size larger than ours. 
Such sacks are used only in handling the grain on the farm and in 
transporting it to the local elevators, where the sacks are emptied and 
carried back to the farm to be refilled. All grain from the North 
Atlantic Coast to the Gulf is shipped in bulk on the steamers. The 
risk is taken by the ship-owners, or the insurance companies are paid 
to do so. 

California Grain Distribution 

The amount of barley exported from the Port of San Francisco 
has been steadily increasing for many years until 1914. In 1915 a 
slight decrease was experienced, due to war conditions. 

It is estimated that the home consumption of barley is about 30,000 
tons per month or 7,200,000 centrals per year. This is about one-third 
of the barley produced in California, while two-thirds is shipped 
elsewhere. 

Changes Made Necessary by a Bulk-Handling System. 

In California grain is generally harvested by the combined har- 
vester which, traveling by animal or tractor power, heads the standing 
grain, threshes it and spouts it into sacks which are then sewn and 
left in the field. Only in a few sections of California is grain harvested 
with a binder and later threshed. The sacks from the harvester often 
remain where they are thrown for some days or weeks; later they 
are gathered into a pile under a tree or in a fence corner, where they 
remain for some time. Still later, at a convenient time, the sacks 
are hauled to a local warehouse on a railroad or steamboat line, from 
whence they take their course onward to a central warehouse. There 
the sacks are opened, the grain cleaned, the broken sacks replaced, the 
grain again sacked and then shipped to its destination in Europe or 
elsewhere. 

Changing from the sacked to the bulk method of handling would 
entail : (la) Equipping the combined harvesters in use with a spouting 



apparatus whereby grain from the harvester would be spouted directly 
into a tight wagon box, or (lb) equipping the combined harvesters 
in use with a bin on the side which would hold approximately one 
wagon load of grain, to be emptied into wagons as they pull alongside, 
or (lc) changing from the combined harvester to the self-binder. It 
would also entail on the farm: (2) the erection of grain bins or small 
tank elevators for storage of bulk grain until it is desired to transport 
the grain by wagon to the railroad. In places where farms are close 
to the railroad such bins or tanks may not be necessary. At the local 
railroad or water-shipping point where grain is received or shipped, 
there would be required: (3a) the erection of local elevators, or (36) 
the refitting of existing warehouses to handle grain in bulk by bins, 
bucket belts and belt conveyors. At a central warehouse terminal, such 
as Port Costa, Sacramento, etc., there must be erected: (4) elevators 
to hold large amounts of grain for shipping. Further, for export 
grain (5) ships must be equipped to handle bulk grain by means of 
shifting boards. 

The problem of changing from the sack to the bulk-handling of 
grain therefore not only depends for its solution upon the co-operation 
of the farmers, but also upon warehousemen, railroads, grain dealers 
and shipping companies. 

The present investigation attempted to gather data and opinions 
from the staff of the College of Agriculture and other interested 
persons concerning the comparative direct expense of harvesting grain 
in bulk and in sacks, both from the combined harvester and from the 
self-binder. The investigation also attempted to set forth clearly the 
various factors that concern the practicability of the bulk-handling 
of grain. Some of these factors which concern warehousemen, 
shippers, etc., are outside the range of this study and therefore no 
attempt has been made to draw conclusions upon such points. How- 
ever, men occupied in the business of grain handling and shipping 
have been consulted and their opinions are set forth herewith. 

Owing to the varying size of fields and farms, of yields and crops, 
and the varying effectiveness of men and machines, but a very relative 
estimate of costs can be made. Therefore whatever estimates might be 
presented, critics would arise to pronounce them incorrect. The 
attempt has been made, however, to present average conditions, with 
the hope of stating figures that may be comparable. It is clearly 
understood by the investigators that under actual field conditions 
throughout the state there may be a wide variation from the costs as 
herein given. The figures and costs were obtained from the University 



of California Agronomy Division, farmers, and the observations of the 
investigators during several years' experience in the harvest fields. 

Cost of Harvesting with the Combined Harvester and Sacking the Grain. 

Yields of grain in California vary widely. Barley runs from 50 
sacks to the acre to 10 sacks, a 15-sack yield is a fair average. Some 
grain, especially wheat, is cut at 6-sacks yield, and taking both wheat 
and barley into consideration 10 sacks is an average on which calcula- 
tion may be based. The cost of harvesting with the combined harvester, 
which is the most widely used harvesting machine in the state, varies 
from $1.50 to $5.00 per acre for contract cutting, with $2.50 per acre 
as a good average. These prices do not include the cost of board of 
men and teams, nor the cost of sacks. The wide variation is due to 
the types of soil, the surface, topography and size of the field, the 
condition of the grain, whether upright or lodged, clean or weedy, 
and the degree of humidity in the locality, which determines the length 
of the working day. The amount of competition among the contractors 
in a certain locality is also an important factor. The cost of sacks 
has ranged from 6-|c to 14c apiece for the last five years, with an 
average cost to the farmer of 8|c. The cost of twine varies with the 
amount used, which depends upon the yield. The cost of picking up 
sacks is variable, but 20c an acre is a good average. This allows $6.00 
a day for a man, team and wagon for picking up 600 sacks a day. One 
man can pick up 500 sacks of wheat or 600 sacks of barley in a day 
and pile them in the field. Such a man commands a wage of $3.00 
a day and board. 

Harvesting with a combined harvester with the use of sacks, the cost 
will run for a 

25-sack Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 

Cost of sacks, 25 @ 8£c 2.12* 

Cost of twine 08 

Cost of picking up sacks, hauling £ mile and piling them in the field .25 

Total cost - - $4.95^ 

10 -sack Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 

Cost of sacks, 10 @ 8£c 85 

Cost of twine 05 

Cost of picking up sacks, hauling ^ mile and piling them in the field .20 

Total cost $3.60 



6-sach Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.50 

Cost of sacks, 6 @ 8£c 51 

Cost of twine 05 

Cost of picking up sacks, hauling I mile and piling them in the field .20 

Total cost $3.26 

Cost of Harvesting with a Combined Harvester and Handling the Grain in Bulk. 

The handling of grain in bulk from the combined harvester is 
entirely practicable and is practiced in Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma 
and Kansas. In order to sell their harvesters in Kansas and Oklahoma, 
where the farmers are not accustomed to the use of sacks, one of the 
manufacturing companies has a bulk attachment which it puts on its 
machines, enabling the owner to take the grain from the machine in 
bulk. Where the elevator is coming into use in Washington and 
Oregon and the combined harvester is used, many bulk attachments 
are sold for the bulk-handling of grain. The Ramina Ranch of Teha- 
chapi, Kern County of this state, uses a bulk attachment on a com- 
bined harvester in harvesting wheat. In bulk-harvesting the combined 
harvester spouts the grain directly into a wagon box or the harvester 
is equipped with bin and elevator attachment which will carry from 
five to ten sacks of grain. 

The bulk attachment usually consists of a grain auger, a bin which 
holds from five to ten sacks, depending on the size of the harvester, 
and a cup conveyor which carries the grain from the bin into the 
wagon. It works very satisfactorily on level ground, but a great deal 
of trouble is likely to be experienced on side hills, where it will be 
practically as hard to keep the wagon under the elevator spout as it 
used to be to keep the old header wagon under the header spout. 
On many side hills, the header wagon had to be tied to the header 
spout to avoid losing the grain. This would be impossible with a grain 
wagon. 

Where the grain wagon is impracticable a few good sacks can be 
bought and filled. They can then be hauled to the elevator and 
emptied and returned again to the farm where they can be refilled. 
This is practiced to a great extent among the small farmers of the 
East. A 120-pound cotton sack is used, which with good care will last 
two or three years. 

Where a harvester is threshing a large crop of 80 sacks per hour, 
which would be about a 25-sack crop, there would be two loads of 
40 sacks each an hour. The average rate of travel of a team under load 
is two and one-half miles per hour. Figuring one-half hour to load 



we can tabulate the time of the haul and the number of wagons required 
for the unit distance. Also, taking 30 acres a day as our standard and 
$6 as the cost of each wagon, we can figure out the cost of hauling per 
acre for the unit distances. 



Number 
of wagons 

3 


Cost 
per acre 

$0.60 


Distance-miles 
(round trip) 

2 


Time of hau' 
(hours) 

1 


4 


.80 


4 


2 


5 


1.00 


6 


2f 


6 


1.20 


8 


U 


8 


1.60 


10 


4* 


9 


1.80 


12 


5^ 



The cost of hauling more than a 12-mile trip becomes prohibitive, 
as the grain could be sacked and hauled as cheaply or, for the cost of 
hauling, bins could be built by which the grain could be handled much 
more conveniently. 

In handling grain in bulk on most of our California ranches, 
perhaps the most practical method would be to haul the grain from 
the harvester to bins on the ranch. This is being practiced more and 
more in the East, due mostly to the manufacture of light, portable, 
steel bins which can be conveniently located about the field and which 
only cost 12c to 15c a bushel capacity to build. Also the scarcity of 
labor at harvest time and the independence of the farmer in holding 
his grain in his own bins has made their use popular. There are many 
firms in the East who manufacture these steel bins, which hold from 
1000 to 2000 bushels. Stationary bins are made which hold up to 
4500 bushels. Wooden crib bins cost about 15c to 20c per bushel 
capacity to build. Machinery and gasoline motor for filling these bins 
can be purchased for from $150 to $200. 

The figures here given contemplate the storage of the grain in bins 
on the ranch because of the great variation in the distance of hauling 
from different ranches. In figuring the cost of harvesting with a com- 
bined harvester and handling the grain in bulk, 25c per acre is 
deducted from the usual cost of the harvester per acre. This amount 
is saved by elimination of the sack sewer and tender, or "jigger." 

Harvesting with a combined harvester and handling the grain in 
bulk the cost will run for a 

25-sack Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 

Cost of hauling with three wagons, hauling J mile and unloading .60 



Total cost, per acre - $2.85 



8 

10 -sack Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 

Cost of hauling ^ mile and unloading with two wagons 40 

Total cost, per acre $2.65 

6-sack Crop — 

Cost of combined harvester, per acre $2.25 

Cosh of hauling \ mile and unloading with one wagon 20 

Total cost, per acre $2.41 

From the above tables it appears that the extra expense of sacking 
grain with a combined harvester is : 

Cost of harvesting 25-sack crop with sacks $4.05* 

Cost of harvesting 25-sack crop without sacks 2.85 



Extra expense of sacking, per acre $2.10* 

Cost of harvesting 10-saek crop with sacks $3.00 

Cost of harvesting 10-sack crop without sacks 2.65 



Extra expense of sacking, per acre $0.95 

Cost of harvesting 6-sack crop with sacks $3.26 

Cost of harvesting 6-sack crop without sacks 2.45 

Extra expense of sacking, per acre $0.81 



Cost of Harvesting with a Binder and Stationary Thrasher with Sacks. 

The cost of binding varies from 50c to $1.00 per acre, with 75c as 
a good average. The average cost of binder twine is 35c per acre. 
Thrashing with a stationary thrasher varies from 10c to 14c per 110 
pounds. In thrashing grain with a stationary thrasher, and handling 
grain in bulk, but lie per 100 pounds is charged. No wagons are 
figured as the grain is carried directly from the stationary into portable 
bins. 

Harvesting with a binder and stationary thrasher with sacks, the 
cost will run for a 

25-sack Crop — 

Cost of sack twine $0.08 

Cost of binder twine .35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of sacks, 25 @ 8Jc 2.12* 

Cost of thrashing, 2500 lbs. at 12c per 100 lbs 3.00 



Total cost, per acre $7.30*. 



10-sack Crop — 

Cost of sack twine $0.05 

Cost of binder twine 35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of sacks, 10 @ 8^c 85 

Cost of thrashing, 1000 lbs. @ 12c per 100 lbs 1.20 



Total cost, per acre •. $4.20 

■sack Crop — 

Cost of sack twine $0.05 

Cost of binder twine 35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of sacks, 6 @ 8£c 51 

Cost of thrashing, 600 lbs. @ 12c per acre 72 



Total cost, per acre $3.38 

(The cost of thrashing a 6-sack crop would probably be more than 
12c per 100 lbs.) 

Cost of Harvesting with a Binder and Stationary Thrasher and Handling the 
Grain in Bulk. 

Harvesting with a binder and stationary thrasher and handling the 
grain in bulk, the cost will run for a 

25-sack Crop — 

Cost of binder twine $0.35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of thrashing, 2500 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 2.75 



Total cost, per acre $4.85 

10-sack Crop — 

Cost of binder twine $0.35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of thrashing, 1000 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 1.10 



Total cost, per acre $3.20 

6-sack Crop — 

Cost of binder twine $0.35 

Cost of binding, per acre 75 

Cost of hauling bundles, per acre 1.00 

Cost of thrashing, 600 lbs. @ lie per 100 lbs 66 



Total cost, per acre $2.76 



10 

From the above tables it appears that the extra expense of sacking 
grain with a binder and stationary thrasher is : 

Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 25-sack crop with sacks $7.30^ 

Cost of harvesting by the selfbinder a 25-sack crop without sacks 4.85 



Cost of sacking a 25-sack crop, per acre $2.45£ 

Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 10-sack crop with sacks $4.20 

Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 10-sack crop without sacks 3.20 



Cost of sacking a 10-sack crop, per acre $1.00 

Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 6-sack crop with sacks $3.38 

Cost of harvesting by the self-binder a 6-sack crop without sacks 2.76 



Cost of sacking a 6-sack crop, per acre $0.62 

It can be noted from the above figures that the cost of sacks and 
twine and the wages of the sack sewer and tender are the controlling 
factors in the cost of sacking grain. However, under most conditions 
on the Pacific Coast, bulk grain brings a lower price for export than 
sacked, the price of sacks being deducted for bulk grain. If this 
remains the custom the saving of bulk-harvesting will be largely 
eliminated. 

It is also true that much of the barley retained in the state is sold 
for feed in sacks, and probably will always be thus sold. Hence it 
will probably always be necessary to use sacks for that portion of the 
crop which is consumed at home. 

Comparative Costs per Acre of Four Methods of Harvesting. 

Yield of 
25 sacks 

Combined harvester with sacks $4.95 

Combined harvester in bulk 2.85 

Self-binder with sacks 7.30 

Self-binder in bulk 4.85 

Reviewing the above figures it will be noted that there is a decided 
saving in handling grain by bulk over that in sacks, provided the same 
harvesting machine is used as before. It is evident, however, that the 
harvesting costs of the combined harvester with sacks and the self- 
binder with bulk grain are about equal. Therefore, if along with the 
elimination of sacks, the "binder" is to supplant the "combine," the 
saving to the farmer must come from other superiorities that the 
binder has over the harvester and which bulk grain has over sacked. 
These superiorities have been claimed to be : 

(1) Decreased cost in handling bulk grain after it is harvested; 

(2) Decreased amount of grain lost by bulk handling; 



Yield of 
10 sacks 

$3.60 


Yield of 
6 sacks 

$3.26 


2.65 


2.45 


4.20 


3.38 


3.20 


2.76 



11 

(3) Decreased amount of grain lost in the field by the binders; 

(4) Decreased depreciation on machinery; 

(5) An improved quality of grain through decrease in weediness. 

The three latter factors are contingent wholly upon the use of the 
binder and are therefore outside the scope of the present investigation. 
Only the first two points will be here considered. 

Decreased Cost in Handling Bulk Grain after It is Harvested. 

(1) Cost of Handling Sacked Gram after Harvesting 
The cost of handling sacked grain is divided into four stages : 
(a) from the machine to the pile in the field and protection there 
until hauled, (b) to the country warehouse, (c) the country warehouse 
and (d) the terminal warehouse. 

(a) Cost from the machine to the pile and covering the pile with 
straw to protect it from sunburn varies with the size of the crop, but 
we can figure 30 tons of grain as a good day's work for one man and 
team. 

Cost of man, team and wagon, per 30 tons $6.00 

Cost of handling from field to pile, per ton 6/30 $0.20 

Cost of covering pile with straw, per ton 05 

Total cost of piling and covering, per ton $0.25 

(b) The cost of hauling from the pile to the warehouse at the rail- 
road varies a great deal with the distance of the haul and conditions 
of the roads, but we can figure that the wagons can be loaded and 
that ten mules will haul eight tons and travel twenty miles per day. 
This is the general method of hauling grain from the large ranches in 
California. The cost of such an outfit is: 

Wages of man $3.00 

Hire of mules, 5 span @ $1.50 per span 7.50 

Eent of three wagons 1.50 

Total cost per day for 8 tons $12.00 

Cost of hauling a ton 10 miles and return 1.50 

This cost to some may seem a high average, but it is believed, in 
most cases, will be found rather low than otherwise. The cost of 
hauling a shorter distance where two trips could be made a day would, 
of course, be much less. The only additional cost would be the hiring 
of a swamper for $2.50 per day. Then the total cost of handling sixteen 
tons would be but $14.50, or 86c per ton. Where the distance is short 
from the farm to the warehouse, the farmer often furnishes a man 
with a team and wagon and pays him from lc to 2c a sack, depending 



12 

on the haul, for picking up the sacks and hauling them to the ware- 
house. 

(c) Country warehouse charges as regularly fixed by the Railroad 
Commission are 75c per ton. This covers the weighing, piling and 
loading into cars and storage for two months. 

(d) No definite figure is obtainable of the cost of handling sacked 
grain at the terminal warehouses, due to the variations in the amount 
of grain that is handled at different times. This is one of the greatest 
difficulties with the warehouse system. So much of the work must be 
done by hand labor that it requires a large number of men. It is 
practically impossible to keep all these at work all of the time, because 
of the fluctuation in the daily amount of grain that comes in and 
leaves the warehouse. 

Mr. E. J. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company at Stockton states 
that it takes 14 to 18 men from 36 to 48 hours, according to tide 
conditions, to unload a 500-ton barge of sacked grain, with the follow- 
ing cost : 10c per ton taking it from barge, weighing it and putting 
it into warehouse, 25c a ton to take it from scales, pile it up, pull it 
down and truck it over to mill dump, making a total cost of 35c per 
ton to handle it this way. 

Mr. McLean of the Globe Milling Company states that it required 
35 stevedores and 10 of their own men 5 days of 10 hours to unload 
a 3000-ton ship. This cost amounts to about 35c a ton in wages. 

Some of the operations that must be performed in bringing the 
sacked grain in and sending it out at some of the big Port Costa 
warehouses are as follows : The cars are unloaded by hand, the number 
of men required to do the unloading varies according to the distance 
of the trucking; but it is usually figured to unload one car an hour. 
The grain is piled as it is brought in after weighing. There are pilers, 
machine feeders and a foreman for the entire crew. When the grain 
is shipped out it must be taken down from the pile, put on a conveyor 
and carried to the cleaner. Here the sacks are cut open and run 
through the cleaner. After cleaning the grain is bagged, put on con- 
veyors and carried to the ship or car. A sampler samples each sack 
and also each sack is marked on the way to the ship. This entire 
operation requires a large gang of men, consisting of markers, samplers, 
weighers, sack counters, sack cutters, truckers and carrier feeders. 
Besides these men there are stevedores in the hold of the ship and on 
the outside feeding the ship's carriers. A great many of the broken 
sacks must be patched and some men are kept busy at this work. 
About 15 per cent of the grain shipped has to be resacked. Several 



13 

machinists and mechanics work about the cleaner and conveyors. All 

these men receive high wages. 

The Port of Seattle gives the following rates for the handling of 

sacked grain at their terminal warehouse, which would correspond 

very closely with ours: 

Unloading cars, piling outward, wharfage and 60 days storage $0.50 

Trucking to ship, per ton 12^ 

Cost of resacking, per ton 30 

Cost of sacks, per ton, to replace old ones 24 

Cost of twine 05 

Cleaning and weighing, per ton 40 

Cost of loading ship 05 

$1.66^ 
Summing up the cost per ton for handling sacked grain after 
harvesting : 

Cost from farm to warehouse $1.50 

Cost at country warehouse 75 

Cost at terminal warehouse 1.66| 

Total cost, per ton $3.91 \ 

Total cost, per 100 lbs 185 

. (2) Cost of Handling Bulk Grain after Harvesting 
Because of the small amount of grain that is handled in bulk in 
this state, it is impossible to obtain any definite figures on the cost of 
handling it. On the farm, the cost of handling bulk grain is a little 
more than that of handling sacked grain, because of the number of 
wagons required to haul it from the machine to the bins. With a 
stationary thrasher where the grain is run directly into the bins from 
the thrasher, the cost is much less for handling it than with sacked 
grain. As to the cost of hauling bulk grain from the farm to the 
country elevator, although the length of the haul is as great, the time 
of loading and unloading is decreased and may permit the employ- 
ment of a cheaper man or a boy. Bulk-handling saves a lot of hard 
work. This is difficult to figure in dollars and cents and therefore for 
our purpose we will consider the cost as about $1.50 per ton. 

The only information that we have available in California on the 
cost of handling bulk grain is obtained from the milling companies. 
Mr. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company states that on unloading a 
barge load of 500 tons of bulk wheat the cost is less than 4c per ton 
from the barge to the mill bins, and the difference in weight on the 
bulk wheat averages about 300 pounds on each barge load of 500 tons. 
Mr. McLean of the Globe Milling Company of San Francisco says 
that by handling their grain in bulk on their bulk-carrying steamer 



14 

Portland from Portland to San Francisco, they pay for the operating 
charges, depreciation and interest (not including insurance) on 
$200,000, the cost of their 3000-ton vessel, for 60c a ton. The saving 
is not so much on operation of the boat but on the stevedore charges 
at each end of the trip, plus loss in weight from handling. Every 
means is used to save all grain bags in loading from the hold to the 
dock. Nevertheless the amount of several tons is lost on each trip in 
this crude way of handling. 

Country elevator charges vary somewhat in different states and 
with different owners. One half cent to one cent a bushel is charged 
for weighing and storing thirty days and loading into cars. The price 
sometimes runs higher, but 50c a ton is a conservative price for a 
country elevator. If the grain is cleaned as usual in most country 
elevators, a charge of 40c a ton is added for the cleaning, and the 
screenings are returned to the farmer. 

The charges at the terminal elevators in the East are from one half 
to one cent a bushel. According to the rates charged by the Public 
Terminal Grain Elevator of the Port of Seattle, the charges on the 
coast are 50c a ton for elevation from the cars, thirty days storage, 
outward wharfage and delivery in bulk into cars, or to vessels over 
grain conveying system. 

Summing up, then, the cost of handling bulk grain after harvest- 
ing is: 

Farm to country elevator, per ton $1.50 

Country elevator, per ton 90 

Terminal elevator, per ton 50 

Total cost, per ton $2.90 

Total cost, per 100 lbs 145 

Cost of handling sacked grain after harvesting, per ton $3.91$ 

Cost of handling bulk grain after harvesting, per ton 2.90 

$1.01i 
According to the above figures, which must be regarded as only 
approximate, the after-harvesting saving in handling bulk grain is 
about one dollar per ton, in addition to which the farmer secures the 
screenings for use on the farm. 

Decreased Amount of Grain Lost by Bulk Handling. 

(1) Losses from Handling Sacked Grain 
It is practically impossible to obtain any definite estimates of the 
losses in handling sacked grain. Most of these losses occur from leaky 
sewing and broken sacks. There is also a great loss from the floor 
of the "dog-house" and from the top of the sacks when sewing. 



15 

Mr. Luke of Stockton says that the Sperry Flour Company lose, on 
the average, 14 tons or ^ of 1 per cent in shipping 2500 tons of sacked 
grain on barges from San Francisco to Stockton. He also says that 
from every 500-ton barge load received, there is a usual loss of from 
2000 pounds to 4000 pounds, or 2 per cent to 4 per cent. This loss 
occurs from the trucking of leaky sacks. 

Mr. Dozier and Mr. McCormick of Rio Vista are of the opinion 
that about 2 pounds of grain is lost for each sack that comes through 
the combined harvester before it reaches the warehouse. They attribute 
this loss to the shuffling of grain from the floor of the "dog-house" 
by the feet of the sewer and tender, failure to brush off the tops of 
sacks before dumping them, bursting of sacks in the field and on the 
wagon, and the cutting of the sacks by field mice in the field. 

A prominent warehouseman of Sacramento has stated that the only 
profit that he made in the warehouse business came from the grain 
that he cleaned up from broken and cut grain bags. 

Several grain warehousemen have stated that when grain is left 
in the warehouse for any great length of time as high as 40 per cent 
has to be resacked, due to the cutting of the mice and rats which are 
practically impossible to eradicate. 

In the rulings of the Railroad Commission on the application of 
warehousemen for a raise in rates from 50c a ton to 75c a ton for 
unloading and storage for two months, the main reason given for the 
need of a 25c raise is the cost of resacking after storage. 

(2) Losses from Handling Bulk Grain 

There is no definite information available on the losses incurred 
from the handling of bulk grain. About the only loss on the farm 
would come from the leaky wagon beds. As this could be easily pre- 
vented there would be no reason for it but carelessness. 

The loss in the country elevator is small. Around the elevators, 
even when they are running at full blast, there is practically no grain 
lying about on the floor. The opposite of this has always been seen 
in every warehouse. As all bins are made mouse- and rat-proof, there 
should be no loss from this source either on the farm or in the 
elevator, as is usually the case with grain in sacks. 

Mr. Luke of the Sperry Flour Company of Stockton gives the loss 
in shipping and handling a 500-ton barge of bulk grain from San 
Francisco to Stockton as never over 300 pounds, which is an exceed- 
ingly small loss and is likely due to a great extent in the difference in 
two men weighing the same grain over different scales. 



16 

Opinions of Farmers. 

Through the county farm bureaus and their centers in various 
communities, the investigators consulted farmers in Solano, San 
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera and Kern counties. Some typical opinions 
expressed are as follows : 

Mr. Dozier: "The elevator is the best method of handling grain and it won't 
be long before we will have one in this town. It recently cost us $50 for labor 
and sacks to prepare 7000 sacks of grain for shipment, due to mice cutting the 
sacks." 

Mr. McCormick: "The elevator is the best method of handling grain and I 
think that it will come in time, but I don't believe that we are ready for it yet. 
I don't believe that it will work on the islands because of the weeds." 

Mr. McEadgen, Dixon: "The bulk method of handling grain is undoubtedly 
the best method and we will have to come to it. I would like to have an experi- 
ment carried on here. The Farmers' Union has three warehouses and I think 
that they could be persuaded to change one of them over to the bulk system for 
handling grain." 

Mr. Kilkenny, Dixon: "I think that the elevator will be a great saving to 
the farmer. He can cut his sack bill in two. At least I would like to try it, 
as I believe it will save money." 

Mr. Laughlin, Waterford: "I don't know much about the bulk-handling of 
grain, only that it is done. But when a man has to spend 10 per cent of his 
crop receipts for sacks to put his crop in, things ought to be changed. I don 't 
know just how one would handle it off the harvester, but I don't see any reason 
why it couldn't be arranged by buying 500 or 1000 sacks and using them two 
or three times. If conditions can be fixed I am for it." 

Mr. Louis Brigetto, Oakdale: "The bulk-handling of grain may be all right 
for the big grain sections, but it won't do with me, as I am too uncertain as to 
the amount of land that I farm and just where I farm it. This section is being 
cut up more every day and in a few years there won't be hardly any grain 
raised here, all the lard will be fruit and alfalfa. There is always some waste 
from a harvester, but I don't know just how much." 

Samuel Howard, Westley: "I think that the bulk-handling of grain is a 
good proposition and I am willing to try it if facilities are fixed for it. I 
spend around $1000 a year for sacks, which is a total loss to me. If I shipped 
in bulk, I would save it. Bulk-shipping ought to work fine here on the West 
Side, as it is a short haul to the track from either side. ' ' 

Ralph Zacharias, Patterson: "I spend about $2000 a year for sacks, which 
is practically a total loss to me. In our own warehouse here, where we keep about 
.3000 sacks, we lose from $300 to $500 a year from mice and rats. I would like 
to try the bulk-handling of my grain if arrangements can be made for it." 

Mr. Schmitz, Madera: "The handling of grain in bulk would be a great 
saving to the grain farmers. I spend from $1500 to $2000 per year for sacks, 
which is a total waste. I had two men with ten mules and three wagons hauling 
440 sacks a day. A sack buck picking up 700 sacks a day gets $3.50. Last year 
I stored 3600 sacks here on the ranch. When I hauled it to town in January 
I had to refill about 1000 sacks. If I had bins there would have been no need 
of this. I can install bins on my place very easily if facilities come so that it 
could be handled at Port Costa and the railroad centers. I would like to see 
a demonstration tried." 

Mr. Pann, Chowchilla: "I cut eighty acres with a binder this year and it 
cost $1 an acre for cutting and $1 for twine. Thrashing costs lie to 12c per 
100 pounds. It cost a little more than a harvester but we more than twice paid 
for it in the savings of grain. Contract cutting by the harvester is done for from 
$1.75 to $2.25 per acre. We paid 9c for sacks. The losses from the harvester 
last year ran from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. There is one thing sure about 
the bulk-handling of grain, and that is we ought to handle our grain that way." 



17 

Mr. Van Nostrum, Tracy: "I think that it would be fine if we could handle 
our grain in bulk as they do in the East. It will be a great saving in sacks. 
We use the binder and believe that it is cheaper than the harvester because 
we do not lose so much grain in shattering. We lose some grain with the binder, 
due mostly to stacking bundles when the wind is blowing. The harvester can 
be made to get most of the grain when a man wants to make it in ideal cutting. 
It costs us 32c an acre for twine, about 50c to bind, and 10c or lie a 100 lbs. 
to thrash. The stacking of the bundles is one of the biggest items. We get 
cleaner grain with the stationary thrasher than we do with the combined 
harvester. " 

Mr. D. W. Jenning, Manager Eamina Ranch, Tehachapi: "Please allow me to 
state that I made the change this last year and harvested 2500 acres and saved 
enough money by the change to pay for my complete installation of elevator 
and conveying system, together with bins and Invincible cleaning machine and 
smutter, making a total of close to $2000. I have outlined the practical cost 
for the change and based my figures on 1000 bushels per day. By this I mean 
that my harvester cut and threshed 1000 bushels and I hauled same to warehouse 
and by using elevator, put it into the bins in a ten-hour day. 

"First: The cost of installing the necessary equipment on a combined har- 
vester is very small and is done by simply building a small hopper, holding 
approximately fifty bushels, directly under the grain discharge. From this 
hopper I put in a spout of gravity flow to the wagon. These wagons were made 
grain-tight and were driven alongside the harvester, and as soon as full the 
hopper was shut off by a lever operated by the driver and the grain was then 
taken direct to the warehouse. From the time it is cut until it is in the bin, 
it is not touched by the hand of man. My dump is fixed by allowing the hind 
wheels of the wagon to drop into a small shoot and by opening the end gate 
the grain is allowed to run into the receiving pit of the elevator. The elevator 
consists simply of rubber belt with buckets for conveying the grain to upper 
conveyor and emptying direct into the bins. This installation can be made for 
about $25.00 if no conveyors are used, just simply dumping the grain into the 
bins, providing, of course, that you have power for running the elevators. If 
it is necessary to get power, a small 2J to 5 h.p. engine will do the work in fine 
shape, making the total cost of perhaps $150. This is on a small scale and not 
equipped for general warehouse purposes. 

"Second: Eeturning to the 1000 bushels per day. I used three four-horse 
teams, two of which operated between the machine and warehouse continuously, 
and the other four horses were used to load wagons from the harvester. These 
teams are figured at $6.50 per day, including driver. The only extra help I 
used was one man at the warehouse, and I allowed $5.00 per day for his wages 
and the fuel used to run the distillate engine, making a total cost of $24.50 per 
day to handle 1000 bushels of grain for harvester to the bins. 

"Third: The old way of handling cost me last year, figuring on the same 
basis, using the three four-hourse teams, $71.80 and is itemized as follows: 

Three teams at $6.50 $19.50 

Sacks for 1000 bushels 36.80 

One man on harvester as sack gig @ $2 2.00 

One sack sewer 3.00 

One man in warehouse to help pile 2.50 



$63.80 
"On this same 1000 sacks I lost at least 10 per cent of the sacks that were 
destroyed by mice, etc., and had to replace them at a cost of $8.00, making a 
total cost of $71.80 as compared to $24.50 this year, a difference of $47.30 per 
day, on the basis of 1000 bushels threshed per day. 

"Also I found in handling the grain in bulk this way there was no loss of 
grain from sacking, as everyone knows who has handled grain that there is more 
or less grain lost from the sacking stand on the separator and from the sacks 
being dumped on the ground, etc. Again I saved at least 10 per cent on my 
whole crop by being able to run the grain direct from the receiving pit into 
the cleaning and smutting machine and into the bin, all in one transaction. I 
am also able to convey my grain from the bins at any time to the cars by 



18 

machinery. Another advantage to be gained by handling bulk grain is that in 
case of storm or bad weather the grain is all in the warehouse and not dumped 
upon the field. 

"I am satisfied from my own experience that every farmer should equip 
himself to handle grain in bulk." 

Opinions of Others Interested in Grain. 

The opinion of buyers, shippers, warehousemen, milling companies, 
steamship companies, insurance underwriters, and manufacturing 
companies was asked on the practicability of bulk-handling of grain. 
Some of these follow : 

American-Hawaiian S. S. Co.: "It is not practicable to carry grain in bulk 
unless we receive large enough shipments to fill completely at least one lower 
hold of one of our steamers. Our ships carry a mixed general cargo and run on 
a schedule and it is not possible to carry bulk grain in them in parcel shipments. 
We have carried grain, but we carry it in sacks and do not bleed the sacks, and 
a requirement of ours is that the sacks shall be all new and free from sunburn. 
If the bulk system is gone over to and facilities are furnished for loading and 
a sufficient quantity can be had to fill one of the lower holds of our steamer, our 
New York people would probably take up the question of making arrangements 
for the carrying of bulk grain. ' ' 

East Asiatic S. S. Co. : ' ' I have always held a view that it is indeed quite 
feasible for any ship to carry grain in bulk and, in certain instances, it would 
be a very great advantage because of the quicker handling. The difficulty to 
my mind does not appear to have ships, that is, steamers, carry grain in bulk 
but it is whether the outlook for grain export from California is great enough 
to involve erection of elevators. ' ' 

Mr. George Eggers, W. E. Grace & Co.: "A good deal of grain has been 
transported in bulk from Puget Sound and Columbia River to Sperry's Mill, 
South Vallejo. Vessels have to be equipped for the proper handling of this 
class of cargo, that is, shifting boards should be installed on the center line 
and holds properly lined so that grain will not become damaged by contact with 
ship 's side and not get into bilges. Vessels get very good despatch, loading at 
the rate of about 200 tons per hour and discharging at the rate of about 150 
tons per hour." 

Mr. T. Henry, ship broker: "Here on this coast we are fifty years behind 
time. All the grain on the Atlantic Coast is shipped in bulk. I don't see why 
we couldn't do the same here. Of course our ships are not all equipped for it 
now, but new types of boats are being built all of the time. I believe that the 
old sailing vessels and the steamers can be equipped rather cheaply to carry 
grain in bulk. The Panama Canal is going to greatly shorten the route so that 
it will become more advisable. I cannot give you any definite information, only 
that what I think. It will have to come up for trial." 

Mr. A. F. Pillsbury, surveyor of ships: "I think that shipment in bulk is 
the most economical way of transporting grain by sea as well as by land and 
river and bay transportation. In the East and on the Atlantic Coast most of 
the grain is handled in this way and I see no good reason why this practice 
should not be followed on the Pacific Coast, providing the Panama Canal be 
open, so that the ocean voyage will not be too long in transporting such cargoes 
from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Coast and Europe. There should be no 
trouble in transporting grain in bulk from the Pacific Coast to Japan and China. 
Many of the modern tramp steamers are constructed for the purpose of carry- 
ing grain in bulk." 

Mr. T. Cary Fried-lander, Secretary Grain and Trade Association, San Fran- 
cisco: "The economic conditions in grain growing in California have been 
always much the same as they are today, save that shipping conditions are a 
little better, due to the more prevalent use of steamship and the opening of 
the Panama Canal. Economic conditions in the past have not brought it about, 



19 

and I believe that if the bulk-handling of grain was that much better than the 
sacking of grain, conditions would have changed in the past. 

"A change to the bulk-handling system from the present sack system will 
mean a complete change from the detailed equipment on the farm, the country 
warehouse, the rolling stock and crafts for transportation, and the terminal 
warehouses at tidewater. This change will require an enormous amount of 
capital. The only real saving will occur in the cost of handling, as the price of 
sacks will not be eliminated as deductions will be made for their cost in the 
purchasing price of bulk grain. 

"There are places in this state where peculiar conditions exist which are 
adaptable to the bulk-handling of grain. Wherever these conditions exist the 
farmers will change over to the bulk system. The fact that a great percentage 
of our barley and wheat crop is sold for feed, and this feed is necessarily 
sold in sacks, and also since all the by-products of our mills are sold in sacks, 
goes to show that sacks are absolutely necessary to our conditions, and it 
doesn 't make much difference whether the farmer or the grain buyer buys them. ' ' 

Mr. Henry C. Bunker, Chief Grain Inspector, Chamber of Commerce, San 
Francisco: "I do not believe that to change over to the bulk system will be 
possible because of the cost of the change to the farmer, the warehousemen, the 
railroads, the distance which the farmer has to haul his grain and the customary 
use of sacks in the past." 

Mr. Volmer, Volmer & Perry, grain dealers: "The change may be possible, 
but it is not practical. Barley cut by a combined harvester produces a much 
better grade of brewing barley than that from the binder, being much brighter 
in color and more mellow." 

G. W. McNear, G. W. McNear & Co., Inc., San Francisco: "From an ex- 
porter 's point of view it is entirely practicable to handle grain in bulk. In fact, 
it is preferable and more economical, but it would mean a complete rearrange- 
ment of our handling facilities from farm to tidewater; that is, interior 
elevators, different class of railroad cars, and suitable elevators at tidewater 
terminals. 

"This would mean a considerable investment and it is a question whether 
the volume of business for export would justify it. The export of wheat from 
this state is insignificant, practically none today. We have and will continue 
to have for export several hundred thousand tons of barley. If in the future, 
the production of wheat and barley should increase and we should have for 
export the quantities that we had fifteen or twenty years ago, then it might be 
advisable to take up this question. 

"Most of the local mills, both feed and flour, are equipped and could readily 
receive grain from the interior in bulk, and so far as the shipping interests at 
Port Costa are concerned, most of us are equipped to handle grain in bulk to a 
certain extent. While there are certain localities in the state where the interior 
interests migh be warranted in putting up small elevators, generally speaking, 
I don't think the matter under present conditions is of sufficient importance to 
go into the question in a large way of handling grain in bulk." 

E. Clemens Horst Co.: "There is no doubt in our minds but that it will be 
only a short time until most of the California barley business will be done in 
bulk entirely. There will have to be some changes made in the methods of 
doing business, but the advantages of bulk-handling of grain are so great that 
there is no doubt but that the handling of the crop in sacks will eventually be 
discontinued." 

Mr. E. H. Shibley, Superintendent Port Costa Warehouse and Dock Co.: 
"Personally I would rather handle grain in bulk than in sacks, though the 
change necessary to be made in order to handle it in bulk would cost a great 
deal. Between June 1, 1913, and June 1, 1914, we handled almost 250,000 tons 
of grain through our warehouse, and the largest quantity we had stored at any 
one time was 58,000 tons. The number of men employed in receiving, cleaning, 
and shipping grain depends, of course, upon the quantity and quality of the 
grain handled. In July, 1914, our payroll showed 320 men, in August 286 men, 
in September 304 men, and in October 240 men. During the corresponding 
months of the year 1915 our payroll showed 136 men, 161 men, 129 men, and 



20 

122 men, respectively. Warehousemen are paid 35c per hour for nine hours and 
they receive 52£c an hour for work after five o'clock, for night work, and for 
Sundays and holidays. Stevedores receive 55c per hour and are paid $1.00 per 
hour for night work and for work on Sundays and holidays. In one day of 
nine hours we loaded over 2500 tons of grain." 

Mr. Perry, Perry & Melone, Stockton, CaL: "There is no doubt about the 
elevator system being the best and most economical system of handling grain, 
but the conditions under which grain is produced here in California almost 
prevents their establishment. The grain business is too unstable. We have 
large crops one year and small ones the next. The warehouse today is a loss 
and is maintained merely as a matter of convenience. We charge 2Jc per 
hundred or 50c per ton for taking, weighing, storing one month and shipping 
grain. Twenty-five cents a month is charged for additional month's storage 
and $1.00 is charged for the entire season. Many warehouses are losing money. 
I wouldn't want to put up an elevator, depending on storage for income. It 
would be up to the farmer or some one else to build them." 

Mr. Stowe, Farmers' Union and Milling Co., Stockton, CaL: "The elevator 
system is the best system of handling grain because of economy in time and 
labor, but will take some time to bring about in California. I do not believe 
that the future of the grain business in San Joaquin County will warrant the 
building of elevators. Grain will be used in the future in a system of rotation 
only. 

"The weeds in the island barley practically prevent it being put into an 
elevator until recleaned, which requires sacking first. If the sacks were left 
in the field two weeks and then cleaned, perhaps it could be elevated. It is a 
proposed radical change on account of the high cost of sacks this year, and 
just as soon as the cost of sacks drops to normal price the bulk-system agitation 
for handling our grain will be over. 

"I believe that if any elevators are to be put up they will have to be put 
up by the farmers themselves, or by large organizations such as the Sperry 
Flour Co. and Globe Grain and Milling Co., who are in the milling business. 
It will be a long time before California adopts the elevator system. Why? 
Because it's a dying business — less acreage for grain every year, and who wants 
to put large amounts of money into strings of elevators?" 

Mr. A. Grunneur, Tracy: "If the farmers think it a good plan to change 
over to the bulk system and arrangements can be made for handling and 
shipping of bulk grain to and from Port Costa, I will be willing to make the 
change even if the cost is large. In keeping grain in the warehouse for six 
months we have to resack about 10 per cent of it. 

"We have sold a great many binders during the past few years, but they 
have gone out west of here, where the wind is the heaviest and there is the 
greatest shattering. The farmers down below here laugh at you when you say 
anything about binders to them. I believe that the harvester is more wasteful 
than economical, in locations where the wind blows so strong as to shatter a 
lot of the standing grain before it is ready for the harvester." 

Mr. Turner, Grange Company, Modesto: "The bulk system of handling grain 
is probably the most economical for that portion of Stanislaus County where 
a good share of the crop is for shipment. You understand that certain portions 
of our grain-producing section serve our own local market, where it is morr 
economically handled for delivery in sacks. Should terminal facilities foi 
handling bulk grain be arranged for in California and the farmers in our sec- 
tion prefer that method of handling, we would be inclined to make arrange- 
ments to handle bulk grain in those sections of the country where we have 
warehouses, where there would be such a demand." 

Mr. George Stewart, Grain Superintendent for Simon Newman Co., Newman : 
"The only thing that I see against the bulk handling of grain in this state 
is the change from the present system to the bulk system, which will do away 
with the warehouses." 

Mr. Saunders, Madera: "I have never thought much about the elevator 
system and have not seen an elevator in operation. There isn 't any money in 
the warehouse business. It is all lost in excess labor, which can't be kept per- 



21 

maneiitly employed. If the elevator is much more of a saving I would be in 
favor of it, if it doesn 't cost too much. I am in favor of all modern improve- 
ments that are a benefit to all concerned. The only money that I make is in 
my barley mill and the wholesale and retail business. It cost me about 50c 
a ton to put grain in the pile before I got my machine to pile with. Now it 
costs less. I have interviewed quite a number of people concerning the elevator 
system of handling grain. From what I have learned the same is not practicable 
at this time in this vicinity, for the following reasons: 

"First. Grain land being subdivided. 

"Second. Price of land being too high to raise grain. 

' ' Third. Haul to Port Costa too short. 

"Fourth. More diversified farming every year. 

"Fifth. Land has been farmed for grain thirty years; does not pay any more. 

"Sixth. It would take the railroad about eight years to equip for handling 
grain loose. 

"Seventh. Our harvest is ninety days; too much money to install elevators 
for ninety days ' work. 

"Eighth. The farmers would receive less for their grain in bulk than in 
sacks, consequently would not save the price on sacks." 

Mr. Woods, Merced: "I don't believe that the present outlook of the future 
of California grain industry here on the east side would warrant the change. 
We have lost the use of two warehouses in the last few years due to irrigation 
and subdivision of the large grain ranches. Those warehouses which they are 
operating at present are about filled to their capacity in good seasons." 

Mr. E. S. Wagenheim, Superintendent of S. Newman Co., Newman: "I have 
thought about the bulk-handling of grain a great deal the past two years, and 
believe that it is the only thing and that it will have to come about. Farmers 
have to pay altogether too much for sacks. I don 't know what it costs to 
build elevators, but they will be built as soon as the railroads will furnish us 
shipping facilities. Also, elevators will have to be built at the terminals. In 
order to bring about the change you work on the railroad and terminal ware- 
house people for facilities, and the farmer and the shipper will soon fall in line. ' ' 

Mr. Niel Nielson, Australian Commissioner at the P. P. I. E., made a report 
to the Government of New South Wales on the bulk-handling of grain. The 
Australian Government has laid plans to change over from the sack system to 
the bulk method of handling grain. 

"A commission of engineers decided to make the change on my report and 
that of an American elevator builder who reported on the relative costs of 
their construction. The railroads, which are owned by the Government, are 
going to make the change, so the Government will indirectly stand the cost. 
Grain is now harvested in Australia with a harvester which has a 10-foot cut 
and is drawn by four horses. They cut about fifteen acres a day and are 
handled by one man. They are on the stripper "plan. Grain is put in bags 
which weigh under 200 lbs. One stripper carries five sacks, which are set off 
the machine when full and sewn." 

Mr. Luke, Sperry Flour Company: "Our 1800 ton steel bins cost us, includ- 
ing foundations, $14,000. Our total expenditure was $25,000, but this included 
elevator on the wharf, carrier from wharf to bins and also reconstructing barge 
for bulk wheat. Our new wood bins, which hold a little over 3000 tons, cost 
us $21,000, but this included carriers from cars to bins and a long carrier belt 
from bins to mill. Our total cost for the bins and foundations above amounted 
to $17,000. We unload from the barge to the bins for 4c a ton. It used to cost 
us 10c a ton to place the sacked grain from the barge on the wharf, and 25c 
a ton to put it in the warehouse. ' ' 

Phoenix Milling Company, Sacramento: "Where great quantities of grain 
are handled, the bulk or elevator system is the best and cheapest. As the crop 
of wheat in California is growing smaller year by year it is doubtful whether 
it would pay to change over at this late day. A large portion of the California 
wheat crop goes out as poultry and stock food, and will have to be sacked 
anyway, and so it is with corn, oats, Egyptian corn, and other grain, which 
latter articles are not raised in sufficient quantities to justify building elevators 
for. 



22 

"We have been asked by farmers whether they would get more for wheat 
in sacks than in bulk and our answer is that grain in sacks will certainly be 
paid for at a higher price and in the proportion to the cost of sacks and sacking. 

"As far as we are, ourselves, concerned in this matter we have an eighty 
thousand bushel elevator in conjunction with our mill, and we prefer receiving 
grain in bulk instead of in sacks. This elevator is of reinforced concrete and 
cost us at the rate of $0.27 per bushel. 

"The fact that the California farmer can leave his wheat in the field after 
sacking for three months or more after harvesting and before hauling to ware- 
house or selling, is quite a factor against handling the grain in bulk, in which 
latter case he would have to haul the grain to the elevator at once." 

Mr. A. B. Haslacher, Manager Oakdale Milling Co.: "The bulk system of 
handling grain works well in the East, where the binder and stationary thresher 
is used. In California, where the combined harvester is used, the grain is not 
cleaned so well and it is doubtful whether it would work so satisfactorily. 
Wheat which is well threshed might be handled in bulk, although the present 
tendency among millers is to keep each lot of California wheat separate, making 
the blend at the mill in accordance with the gluten test developed in each lot. 
Barley varies so greatly in cleanliness, that it would be difficult to bulk together 
several different lots for feed purposes, since farmers and buyers could not 
agree as to standards. Shipping or brewing barley would probably have to be 
kept separate in country elevators, the blending, if any, being done at terminal 
points. Shippers and maltsters like to do their own grading. 

"Farmers in this vicinity have not stock enough to have their hauling keep 
pace with their threshing operations. It is customary in this vicinity to pile 
the sacked grain in the field, hauling later in the season when threshing is 
finished. Apparently, there is a certain convenience in this. 

"The present agitation in favor of elevators is largely due to the abnormal 
price of jute grain bags, due to war conditions. The price of sacked grain will 
always be more than bulk grain. In buying Eastern wheat we pay 1\ cents 
more per cental for sacked grain than we do for bulk grain. In years previous 
to 1916, when the price of sacks was normal, this increase in price practically 
took care of the cost of sacks. 

"There would have to be a change in railroad equipment as well as in 
terminal storage facilities to make possible handling of bulk grain. To make 
the change necessary at Port Costa alone, would involve the expenditure of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions. There has been a certain 
unwillingness on the part of shippers and millers to expend a sum necessary 
to effect this change in a business which is waning as fast as grain raising in 
California. The warehousemen in the interiors, as a rule, would not be willing 
to make the change. Fifteen years ago our line comprised thirty warehouses 
well filled every year, most of the time unable to handle all the grain offering. 
At present we operate twenty warehouses and it is rare to find one more than 
indifferently filled. Every warehouseman will tell the same story. Owing to 
large areas going into other products, the amount of grain raised in California 
is constantly cut down. 

"In conclusion, the present agitation is due primarily to the exorbitant price 
of sacks. When grain sacks emerge from the "War Baby" class, the storage 
of grain will proceed along the same old lines. There is a certain convenience 
of handling bulk, but there is also a certain convenience, as I have tried to 
point out, of handling in sacks. The immense cost of making the change would 
not be justified and will not be attempted in a general way." 

Mr. W. E. Shepherd, Holt Mfg. Co.: "There is no question but that the 
farmers of California could save an immense amount of money if their grain 
could be handled in bulk, and I believe that in many parts of California it will 
be handled in bulk in the future. Of course in some sections of the country, 
where the raising of grain is being replaced by the raising of other products, 
an extensive elevator system would not be practical. But even in these sections, 
small elevators built by the farmers themselves will be used to a greater or 
less degree. 

"As far as handling grain in bulk from combined harvester is concerned, 
the matter is very simple. All Holt harvesters can be equipped for handling 



23 

bulk grain at a very small cost. In fact, harvesters that we have sent to 
Oklahoma and Kansas, where elevators are the rule, have all been equipped to 
handle grain in bulk. They have proved that the handling of bulk grain from 
combined harvesters is satisfactory. It has ceased to be an experiment with us.' ' 

Mr. J. W. Duval, Crop Technologist in charge Grain Standardization, Bureau 
of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture: "I have to advise that 
there is no very definite information available as to the relative cost of these 
two methods, as so much depends on the volume of grain handled, management, 
and other factors. It goes without saying, however, that the cost of handling 
grain in sacks is very much greater than by handling in bulk. In our work we 
generally consider that the cost of bulk-handling is about one-fourth that of 
handling in bags, that is, for the handling alone. There is, of course, an 
additional cost to farmers in the expense of bags, which usually range from 
eight to ten cents or from four to five cents per bushel. 

"In an article in the Grain Dealers Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, issue of April 25, 
1914, there is a brief summary of the report of the committee appointed . to 
investigate the saving of handling grain by bulk on the Pacific Coast, which 
committee reported that in Oregon this would result in a saving of $660,000. 
In an article which appeared in the Price Current-Grain Reporter, Vol. 71, hi. 3, 
p. 19, issue of January 21, 1914, Mr. Louis Delivuk of Quincy, Wash., says that 
in 1910 the sack system reduced the net price received by farmers of Washing- 
ton for their wheat by nineteen cents per bushel as compared with the average 
received by all farmers in the United States, and in 1911 the average was 
fifteen cents per bushel under the amount received by other farmers. In a short 
article in the American Elevator and Grain Trade, Vol. 32, No. 4, p. 182, issue 
of October, 1913, which article refers especially to the handling of grain on 
the Pacific Coast, it is estimated that the additional cost of handling in sacks 
for the Northwest is $2,000,000." 



CONCLUSIONS 

It is apparent that the bulk-handling of grain on California farms, 
either from the combined harvester or from the binder, is entirely 
practicable and would undoubtedly make for economy and for the 
betterment of the industry. It is also apparent that it is much more 
easily accomplished for wheat than for barley, due to the systems in 
vogue for grading the grains and to the fact that all California wheat 
is used in the state. 

How much the actual saving would be for either cereal to the 
farmer is problematical, owing to the uncertainty of (1) the future 
comparative prices for sacked and bulk grain, (2) the varying dis- 
tances grain must be hauled from the farm, and (3) the future price 
of sacks. 

The greatest saving by handling grain in bulk is after the grain 
leaves the farm. The contention that the old sacked system of handling 
grain is necessarily inherent to California is amply disproved by the 
experience of other grain-producing countries which, prompted by 
governmental investigation, have changed from the sacked to the bulk 
system with the advent of the grain-carrying steamship. 

In the last twenty years, California has changed from a wheat 
exporting to a wheat importing state. Meanwhile the production of 



24 

barley has so greatly increased that the export problem of grain- 
handling is largely confined to barley. Since wheat in California is 
largely consumed inside the state, it is much more readily possible to 
handle that grain by bulk since no export problems are thereby 
encountered. 

The bulk-handling of barley is attended with greater difficulty than 
that of wheat, due to the fact that barley is purchased more upon its 
physical appearance than upon its chemical quality. Brewers have 
been in the habit of purchasing barley in individual lots on the theory 
that the germination of these lots would be uniform and therefore 
the brewing quality of the product would be of higher grade than 
otherwise. Because the change from the sacked to the bulk-handling 
of barley necessitates the mixing of various lots, the difficulties are 
greatly increased. 

Of the six changes which the shift from the sacked to the bulk 
method would make necessary for export grain, three lie beyond the 
farm and rural community. It is easy to conceive that farmers may 
(1) equip harvesting machinery to handle bulk grain, and (2) build 
grain bins or portable elevators on the farm, and that (3) elevators 
may be built by co-operative effort at local shipping points. It is not 
so easy, however, to predict that the other necessary changes can be 
accomplished merely by the agitation of farming communities. These 
are (4) the erection of a great terminal elevator, (5) equipment of 
rolling stock, boats and ships to carry bulk grain, and (6) the per- 
manent opening of the Panama Canal. Of these the most important, 
and for the present the most uncertain, is the erection of a terminal 
elevator to accommodate the export grain. 

Until some plan is under way for a terminal elevator and until 
grain ships are equipped to carry bulk grain through the Canal, it is 
evidently undesirable for the barley ranchers to make any large 
expenditure for building local elevators, farm grain bins or bulk grain 
harvester attachments. 

If the time comes to erect local elevators at shipping points it may 
be well for the farmers of California to profit by the experience of 
middle western states. It was there learned by bitter experience that 
unless there were more than one local elevator to which farmers could 
ship, or unless the local elevator were maintained by some co-operative 
enterprise for the common benefit, the likelihood of monopolistic 
control and of consequent dissatisfaction was greatly increased. If 
it is desirable to ship in bulk it thereby becomes desirable to build 
upon the co-operative plan such local elevators as may be necessary. 



